Minarets start at neutral 2.Urns start as neutral 1.Winning condition - hold all regions next to the nileConditional borders for amount of territs.Using starting positions, I will limit the neutrals on the map for 2 player games. All regions not coded neutral at the start will be part of this system (1982 map has it like this). A max of 11 will be handed out. So all not handed out will always start as a neutral 3.2 players = 11 regions 3 players = 8 regions 4 players = 6 regions 5 players = 5 regions 6 players = 4 regions 7 players = 3 regions 8 players = 3 regions

OK....reasonable start.....he -> theKoontzAppearances tell me you can't make up your mind?If these are large maps, the inner cty areas will be awfully squashed on the small...prehaps condense a few...or make buildings out of them.I think there is far too much wasted real estate on both.i prefer the bottom one because it seems more finished towards an initial idea...but the river and regions...and not being negative here...they're too plastic/ice creamy/slimy...i know early days...but i think a long way to go. Good luck.

If these are large maps, the inner cty areas will be awfully squashed on the small...prehaps condense a few...or make buildings out of them.

Tried the small map, and whilst smaller, it all fits. As for the shapes of the territs, what can you do when a city comes to life. But I want to keep the squashed feel for the centre as that is what city centres are.

I think there is far too much wasted real estate on both.

Their is, but I need to wait for a few days to get the rules all in place. When I get those finalised, I can get the size issues sorted.

i prefer the bottom one because it seems more finished towards an initial idea...but the river and regions...and not being negative here...they're too plastic/ice creamy/slimy...i know early days...but i think a long way to go. Good luck.

Same here. When you said melted ice cream,

generalhead wrote:I personally like the bottom one. I like the pyramids, the camel and the green background. The light brown texture also reminds me of sand, which reminds me of the deserts of egypt.

ok. do you know about vanishing point...you need to get one sorted if your going to have the pyramids and their bases looking correct.this will give you 3D view.the shadow on the camel could be used as the guide for the VP.

koontz1973 wrote:[quote="cairnswk"If these are large maps, the inner cty areas will be awfully squashed on the small...prehaps condense a few...or make buildings out of them.

Tried the small map, and whilst smaller, it all fits. As for the shapes of the territs, what can you do when a city comes to life. But I want to keep the squashed feel for the centre as that is what city centres are....[/quote]yes, but please give some eye space otherwise people will not enjoy .

OK, i want this to succeed, so don't think i am hastling...1. we had this issue in a previous map...can't remember which one it was...but the lack of black border on the sides of the river looks awkward, and unfinished.2. your vanishing point is not consistent...you've got the top of the pyramid heading off into the sky while the bottom heads over to the sun3. the light from the setting sun is too intense and over takes the title, the font of which is quite pleasing.4. the one part that looks perfect is the camel, although the shadow seems too long for the lowness of the sun.5. the shadow side of the big pyramid is darker than the shadow side of the small6. i don't quite understand the light beacon on top the large pyramid...what is it meant to be there for?7. the font for the terts, is quite hard to read.8. some small glyphs are hard to make out.9. i think you need to add symbol to each of the explanations, either that or make a heading called Symbol Bonuses, and hold 4 of the same -3 listed underneath.10. my eye is drawn to your sig. needs moving to the side and less intense.sorry the list is so long, but these are just challenges to overcome, that's all.

Will play around with something but it is Jakarta you are thinking about.

No it was one of the USA city maps i think.

Two vanishing points, not unheard of.

True, but one building side should have the same vanishing point for all lines...and the other building side would have another VP for all those lines....not the top and bottom of the same side having 2 VPs.

Nice idea as always Koontz. It looks like you and cairns are pretty much working out most of what I see as well, and I know you're working hard already to get another draft out so I won't say much. The main thing I see are the symbols being too small and the other graphics stuff.

I'm also looking forward to the rules update as most of the gameplay rules are a little confusing to me for some reason.

I would love a quick explanation of Vanishing Points and maybe a little gimp tutorial if possible.

Vanishing points are easy to explain. As you look further away, things get smaller. As in this picture, the shops further away are smaller than the one in front. The argument goes that a picture should have no more than two to stop confusion of the brain. The problem arises when like I have. you have different objects of different sizes. The pyramids are large, but the sun is larger. So I have 2 focal points. This causes a problem with perspective in 2D drawings. The bottle in the bottom picture is smaller clearly, but if you have a football and a tennis ball, the football is larger. Put the football far enough away and it becomes smaller than the tennis ball. So which one is larger? This is a problem in 2D drawings. Single perspective2 vanishing points or double perspectivescale

As for the rules of the map, that will have to wait for a bit. I really want to get this perspective down and put the background to bed. The map itself is what it is, but it will go like Vertex (+1 for every 4 connected territs). But a few special surprises will go onto the map as well. I am going to drop the circles and symbols and put hieroglyphics on instead.

each side base length needs to be the same.you'll notice i've put the the apex at centre. in this circumstance. the top lines are the same angle as the baselines.

if we wer standing at the base, those top lines would have an entirely different angle which would direct off to the VPs....similar to what you see in the buildings image.

PS. I will pull this image down in 2 days.

But i have to say, and this is food for thought... why are you doing pyramids for Cairo?there are several other things that Cairo is famous for e.g. mosques, markets, university, bridges over Nile, flooding.something like this is far easier to re-image, and still says Cairo. or even thisthe pyramids are great but they to me spell Egypt and that civilisation.and this is vastly different from what Cairo is about today.

This should sort out all perspective issues. As for the skyline, I tried to add, and it looks odd. The problem is the scale and ideas. While I am sure the other options are well known to some, they are not to all.

koontz1973 wrote:EDIT: Did you mean for the background or the map itself?

for the map itself. I think that as background it could not works fine.

Oneyed

Tried it and looks weird. Will try again but for a different map though.Rules are now on the map.No continental bonuses. 1 for 4 joining regions. This will get pretty funny when you take into account all of the conditional borders. Conditional borders are going to get even funnier when they are all laid out correctly. This is just the mock up version to get ideas flowing form you lot. The more territs you own, different pathways open or close to you.

OK just couple of things...1. why do u post these early versions in .pngs....they take way too long to download....i have found it is much more productive to post as .jpgs even though the quality is not there, yet sometimes there is hardly any difference.2. what do the red lines mean - are they impassables?3. can't read the top left bonuses...too much opacity.4. pyramids look perfect and much more proportional5. region text is far more legible - good job.6. what you said in the post, needs to be explained on the mapProgression...

cairnswk wrote:OK just couple of things...1. why do u post these early versions in .pngs....they take way too long to download....i have found it is much more productive to post as .jpgs even though the quality is not there, yet sometimes there is hardly any difference.

Just started doing them way back on Rorke's. Only use the jpegs for the subsidiary maps. But no problem, will use jpegs.

2. what do the red lines mean - are they impassables?

3. can't read the top left bonuses...too much opacity.

6. what you said in the post, needs to be explained on the mapProgression...

Top left text explains these. Can you read it now and is it clear?

4. pyramids look perfect and much more proportional

5. region text is far more legible - good job.

Thanks.As I said, these borders are only temp till they all become finalised in GP. When that happens, I will find nice ones for the three. No need to do nice ones till I can say that these are not going to be buggered about later.